Some 100 million rai of Thai land is owned by foreigners, mostly through their Thai spouses or nominees, Auditor-General Sriracha Charoenpanit revealed yesterday.
He said if this situation was "unsolved", it could lead to later generations of Thais having no land to live on.
Sriracha told a seminar yesterday on concealed juristic acts that threats to national security came from: firstly, drug problems ruining people, and secondly, the lack of land for future generations, as foreigners now owned a third of Thai land - about 100 million rai.
It was a long-standing issue that resulted from a policy in 1997 to stimulate the economy by giving a special right of land ownership to foreigners with one million US dollars, he said. Some 90 per cent of coastal land at Ban Phe Beach in Rayong was foreign-owned, and foreigners owned about 30 per cent of Hua Hin and Pattaya.
Land deals were done in ways such as via marriage with Thais or setting up a Thai-based company and a law which allows foreigners to hold up to 49 per cent of the shares. Indeed, he said, many companies let them hold the other 51 per cent through nominees.
Sriracha called for a limit on land owned by foreign residents and said the land tax should be hiked to promote the use of land, although doing this might be difficult, as the rich would object.
As a long-term solution, he urged the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) and Department of Special Investigation to look into foreign land ownership and give rewards to people who help police arrest those who break the law.
National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) lecturer Piyanuch Potawanich warned that the launch of the Asean Economic Community in 2015 would lead to more foreigners using nominees to own Thai land, especially Singaporeans, who were smart, had money and needed to invest for profit. Among many solutions, she also urged laws to punish nominees and deport any foreigners who do wrong.
Land Department executive Sujit Jongprasert admitted that finding nominees for foreigners who buy land wasn't easy. And AMLO chief Pol Colonel Sihanat Prayoonrat said the agency only checked land transactions that involved over Bt2 million in cash, so many buyers reduced the payment to avoid having to report such deals.
Source: The Nation
Related Article: Pattaya reforms foreign ownership to get ready for AEC
With Asean Economic (AEC) forming in 2015, Pattaya officials are buckling down on foreign ownership in condominium projects from 70 per cent to 49 per cent. Deputy mayor, Ronakit Ekasingh said, “Pattaya needs to get ready for the AEC. If we wait until 2015, it may be too late as other countries in Asean are now preparing for the single regional common market.” As Pattaya is a special administrative area, Ekasingh’s hope is for Pattaya to lead the way in promoting investment in Thailand. Additionally to Pattaya being a tourist destination, Phuket is as well which is why a pilot programme should be instilled as both cities have their own administrative authorities.
Source: TBN
Thought: Get ready for the clampdowns ...
Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownership
Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownership
Who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed? - Hunter S Thompson
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
How does one actually go about owning land by marrying a Thai? I've always been led to believe the land is owned by the Thai partner, but then again, I'm nowhere near as intelligent as the auditor general. 
Strange how this same article comes up year after year
Strange how this same article comes up year after year
Don't try to impress me with your manner of dress cos a monkey himself is a monkey no less - cold fact
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
It'll be interesting to see if anything happens as the current lot in charge are supported by modern-day communists basically.
I too, fail to see the problem with being married to a Thai that owns land Takiap.
A bit of 'Johnny Foreigner' bashing always goes down well here, I guess.
I too, fail to see the problem with being married to a Thai that owns land Takiap.
A bit of 'Johnny Foreigner' bashing always goes down well here, I guess.
Resolve dissolves in alcohol
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
....and the Bangkok Post version. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/2 ... f-all-land
"......But Wason Khongchantr, managing director of Modern Property Consultant, said it was impossible that a third of land in Thailand is owned by foreigners.
"I estimate less than 5% of total land is owned by foreigners," he said.
Residential areas account for only 10% of the country's total land areas, and only a handful of provinces typically attract foreign residents, Mr Wason said......."
It's as usual all sour grapes IMO. Keep the people poor, uneducated and under your thumb, then complain they'll be no land for their future. Hey stupid, they can't compete or buy land because of what you do to them, not because outside influences. Brain dead inbreds. Pete
"......But Wason Khongchantr, managing director of Modern Property Consultant, said it was impossible that a third of land in Thailand is owned by foreigners.
"I estimate less than 5% of total land is owned by foreigners," he said.
Residential areas account for only 10% of the country's total land areas, and only a handful of provinces typically attract foreign residents, Mr Wason said......."
It's as usual all sour grapes IMO. Keep the people poor, uneducated and under your thumb, then complain they'll be no land for their future. Hey stupid, they can't compete or buy land because of what you do to them, not because outside influences. Brain dead inbreds. Pete
Last edited by PeteC on Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
-
margaretcarnes
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4172
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:28 am
- Location: The Rhubarb Triangle
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
WTF? Surely most of the foreign 'owned' land in Rayong came about as a result of agreements on trade with the US, and because of the special relationship between the two countries? (ie both wanted rid of the Kong.)
Surely much of that land will be occupied by factories, shipyards etc?
OK time has passed and perhaps there is now genuinely Western owned land occupied by hotels etc. The article does imply that a juristic loophole exists - one which I'm sure many farang would be mighty pleased to know about - but if that is the case the fault lies fair and square with the Thai government.
Of course we know there would be no such thing as compensation. So whats' all that garbage about farang 'ownership' leading to increased drug abuse etc?
Aaaah - got it - farang dies leaving younger Thai widow and a couple of Leuuk Kreung. Of course they don't get his pensions and widow has to go out to work to pay the bills. The kids have to go live with Grandma in Issaan where they get into yaba due to routine abuse.
Finally the widow has to take in lodgers who fall into arrears with their rents and rock up the lekky bills. She leaves them to it and moves back to Mums' as well, leaving a little ghetto which was once a 'farang' owned home.
I think what this guy actually means is that the practice of farang PAYING for land by means of it being in Thai names is what is going to lead to the downfall of the country. And a whole third of that country? Difficult in itself to believe.
If this weren't such a sad reflection of how some Government officials view anything farang as an ongoing threat to the Land of Smiles it would be laughable.
Surely much of that land will be occupied by factories, shipyards etc?
OK time has passed and perhaps there is now genuinely Western owned land occupied by hotels etc. The article does imply that a juristic loophole exists - one which I'm sure many farang would be mighty pleased to know about - but if that is the case the fault lies fair and square with the Thai government.
Of course we know there would be no such thing as compensation. So whats' all that garbage about farang 'ownership' leading to increased drug abuse etc?
Aaaah - got it - farang dies leaving younger Thai widow and a couple of Leuuk Kreung. Of course they don't get his pensions and widow has to go out to work to pay the bills. The kids have to go live with Grandma in Issaan where they get into yaba due to routine abuse.
Finally the widow has to take in lodgers who fall into arrears with their rents and rock up the lekky bills. She leaves them to it and moves back to Mums' as well, leaving a little ghetto which was once a 'farang' owned home.
I think what this guy actually means is that the practice of farang PAYING for land by means of it being in Thai names is what is going to lead to the downfall of the country. And a whole third of that country? Difficult in itself to believe.
If this weren't such a sad reflection of how some Government officials view anything farang as an ongoing threat to the Land of Smiles it would be laughable.
A sprout is for life - not just for Christmas.
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
This is just verbal diarrhea playing to the cheap seats.
Land is often owned by furriners, its true. Furrin corporations like Hilton, Marriott, Sofitel, Honda, Toyota, Western Digital, Adidas etc etc. all invited in to invest big money and create jobs.
Land is often owned by furriners, its true. Furrin corporations like Hilton, Marriott, Sofitel, Honda, Toyota, Western Digital, Adidas etc etc. all invited in to invest big money and create jobs.
Happiness can't buy money
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
It would be very interesting to know just how much property these decision makers own overseas. Many Thais own properties outright in Australia without any restrictions, some of whom I know are close to the top of Thai society. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
Complexity is so simply overrated
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
Well, they could always start their clean up operations by confiscating all land/property owned by Thais who are married to Farang. They'd get their holy ground back, and the red shirt numbers would decrease. Then they could confiscate all land owned by companies that don't actually trade, and finally, they could confiscate all land own by legitimate foreigner owned companies. This would be the easiest route back into the dark ages, and then the reds and yellows would be able to focus on what really matters
The irony is, I bet some or other new development is being approved as I sit writing this.
The irony is, I bet some or other new development is being approved as I sit writing this.
Don't try to impress me with your manner of dress cos a monkey himself is a monkey no less - cold fact
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
From what I've seen, in the vast majority of cases Westerners are actually buying land for Thais to live on as they're buying it off wealthy land owners and giving it to Issan girls and their families. Perhaps that is the what the Thai establishment doesn't like.He said if this situation was "unsolved", it could lead to later generations of Thais having no land to live on.
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
There could perversely be some truth in that as it certainly disrupts their harsh class and status system.......long may the disruption continue.From what I've seen, in the vast majority of cases Westerners are actually buying land for Thais to live on as they're buying it off wealthy land owners and giving it to Issan girls and their families. Perhaps that is the what the Thai establishment doesn't like.
Resolve dissolves in alcohol
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
Unfortunately many Thais - brought up to leave the thinking to others and to unconditionally obey and believe anybody higher up in the pecking order no matter what - will fall for this farang scapegoat propaganda. Although in itself it is probably (and for many hopefully) just another meaningless crackdown threat that will float by, but I am afraid these kind of observations send a wrong message to the people and it can certainly have a negative impact on the attitude of many Thais towards farangs in the long run.
We are all living in 'the good old days' of the future.
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
Ombudsman barking up the wrong tree
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... wrong-tree
Although an increasing number of foreigners now own land in Thailand through nominees or their Thai spouses, the ombudsman's claim that foreigners now own one-third of the country is simply just not credible.
And if the truth be told, foreign ownership of land is a lesser threat than the non-stop illegal land grabs by influential figures that have depleted our fast declining forest cover.
Ombudsman Siracha Charoenpanij’s claim that a third of the land in Thailand is now owned by foreigners by means of exploitation of loopholes in the land ownership law is simply too good or too bad to be true.
Citing an unspecified academic study, the ombudsman said that more than 90 per cent of the coastal land at Rayong’s Ban Phe beach now has foreign ownership, whereas in Pattaya and Hua Hin about 30 per cent of the land there belongs to foreigners.
The study is doubtful at best and Mr Siracha should not have quoted it in the first place without cross-checking the facts or the credibility of the academic or educational institute which did the study.
One-third of the land amounts to some 100 million rai, given the total land mass of the country which is about 319 million rai. It is simply not believable that foreigners or foreign companies could acquire such a huge amount of land. Any man with a pinch of commonsense or a modicum of wisdom will immediately find this study highly incredible and agree that it should not be used as a reference.
But it appears that Mr Siracha was convinced by the study. He said the Office of the Ombudsman would propose a bill to prevent nominees holding property within two weeks.
Despite the excessively inflated figure of land supposedly in foreign hands, about 100 million rai, as stated by the study, there is a grain of truth in that some foreigners have resorted to proxy ownership to evade the land law.
The study is doubtful at best and Mr Siracha should not have quoted it in the first place without cross-checking the facts or the credibility of the academic or educational institute which did the study.
One-third of the land amounts to some 100 million rai, given the total land mass of the country which is about 319 million rai. It is simply not believable that foreigners or foreign companies could acquire such a huge amount of land. Any man with a pinch of commonsense or a modicum of wisdom will immediately find this study highly incredible and agree that it should not be used as a reference.
But it appears that Mr Siracha was convinced by the study. He said the Office of the Ombudsman would propose a bill to prevent nominees holding property within two weeks.
Despite the excessively inflated figure of land supposedly in foreign hands, about 100 million rai, as stated by the study, there is a grain of truth in that some foreigners have resorted to proxy ownership to evade the land law.
It is true that many farang men have given money to their Thai women to buy land and then to build a house on it. This practice is widespread in several Isan provinces where some communities are literally known as foreign-in-laws villages for the high number of cross-cultural marriages. It is also true that some foreigners who have obtained permanent residency in Thailand have bought up almost all the units in some condominium buildings, in Pattaya, for instance.
But it is simply not possible that the actual level of foreign land ownership is anywhere close to the figure claimed by this unspecified study. Even one-tenth of the figure postulated would still be unrealistically high.
Is foreign land ownership really such a security threat that Mr Siracha feels justified in introducing a new law to plug the loopholes, especially regarding proxy landownership. I don’t think so.
The real threat, the real land ownership problem, and one which is of greater and more urgent concern is the illegal land grab by those influential people, including politicians, exploiting the poor to poach the forests, then occupying the land and turning it into plantations, farms or resorts.
The other real problem is that far too much land is owned by only a few dozen families, while many people do not have even a small piece of land on which build a hut and put a roof over their head to protect them from the rain and the sunshine.
Mr Siracha is simply barking up the wrong tree!
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin ... wrong-tree
Although an increasing number of foreigners now own land in Thailand through nominees or their Thai spouses, the ombudsman's claim that foreigners now own one-third of the country is simply just not credible.
And if the truth be told, foreign ownership of land is a lesser threat than the non-stop illegal land grabs by influential figures that have depleted our fast declining forest cover.
Ombudsman Siracha Charoenpanij’s claim that a third of the land in Thailand is now owned by foreigners by means of exploitation of loopholes in the land ownership law is simply too good or too bad to be true.
Citing an unspecified academic study, the ombudsman said that more than 90 per cent of the coastal land at Rayong’s Ban Phe beach now has foreign ownership, whereas in Pattaya and Hua Hin about 30 per cent of the land there belongs to foreigners.
The study is doubtful at best and Mr Siracha should not have quoted it in the first place without cross-checking the facts or the credibility of the academic or educational institute which did the study.
One-third of the land amounts to some 100 million rai, given the total land mass of the country which is about 319 million rai. It is simply not believable that foreigners or foreign companies could acquire such a huge amount of land. Any man with a pinch of commonsense or a modicum of wisdom will immediately find this study highly incredible and agree that it should not be used as a reference.
But it appears that Mr Siracha was convinced by the study. He said the Office of the Ombudsman would propose a bill to prevent nominees holding property within two weeks.
Despite the excessively inflated figure of land supposedly in foreign hands, about 100 million rai, as stated by the study, there is a grain of truth in that some foreigners have resorted to proxy ownership to evade the land law.
The study is doubtful at best and Mr Siracha should not have quoted it in the first place without cross-checking the facts or the credibility of the academic or educational institute which did the study.
One-third of the land amounts to some 100 million rai, given the total land mass of the country which is about 319 million rai. It is simply not believable that foreigners or foreign companies could acquire such a huge amount of land. Any man with a pinch of commonsense or a modicum of wisdom will immediately find this study highly incredible and agree that it should not be used as a reference.
But it appears that Mr Siracha was convinced by the study. He said the Office of the Ombudsman would propose a bill to prevent nominees holding property within two weeks.
Despite the excessively inflated figure of land supposedly in foreign hands, about 100 million rai, as stated by the study, there is a grain of truth in that some foreigners have resorted to proxy ownership to evade the land law.
It is true that many farang men have given money to their Thai women to buy land and then to build a house on it. This practice is widespread in several Isan provinces where some communities are literally known as foreign-in-laws villages for the high number of cross-cultural marriages. It is also true that some foreigners who have obtained permanent residency in Thailand have bought up almost all the units in some condominium buildings, in Pattaya, for instance.
But it is simply not possible that the actual level of foreign land ownership is anywhere close to the figure claimed by this unspecified study. Even one-tenth of the figure postulated would still be unrealistically high.
Is foreign land ownership really such a security threat that Mr Siracha feels justified in introducing a new law to plug the loopholes, especially regarding proxy landownership. I don’t think so.
The real threat, the real land ownership problem, and one which is of greater and more urgent concern is the illegal land grab by those influential people, including politicians, exploiting the poor to poach the forests, then occupying the land and turning it into plantations, farms or resorts.
The other real problem is that far too much land is owned by only a few dozen families, while many people do not have even a small piece of land on which build a hut and put a roof over their head to protect them from the rain and the sunshine.
Mr Siracha is simply barking up the wrong tree!
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil know`s you`re dead!
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
"Mr Siracha is simply barking up the wrong tree!"
Amen to that.
Amen to that.
A friend is only one click away
-
The understudy
- Ace
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:16 pm
- Location: Hua Hin, Bangkok, Berlin, L. A. rotating
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
Hey there Whazzp Y'all!
This Ombudsman is clearly barkin up the wrong tree.
Your observations are absolutely right STEVE G! I have a few German friends who married Thai Isan Woman and with the Money of their foreign Husbands bought the House & Land from their families. The establishment for realst ain't like that at all. This makes some new landowners Masters of their of their own land and not as history would us to have like in the past where the Farmers prepare the land and the Lords of the Fielddoms reap in all the Benefits.
This Ombudsman is clearly barkin up the wrong tree.
He said if this situation was "unsolved", it could lead to later generations of Thais having no land to live on.
From what I've seen, in the vast majority of cases Westerners are actually buying land for Thais to live on as they're buying it off wealthy land owners and giving it to Issan girls and their families. Perhaps that is the what the Thai establishment doesn't like.
Your observations are absolutely right STEVE G! I have a few German friends who married Thai Isan Woman and with the Money of their foreign Husbands bought the House & Land from their families. The establishment for realst ain't like that at all. This makes some new landowners Masters of their of their own land and not as history would us to have like in the past where the Farmers prepare the land and the Lords of the Fielddoms reap in all the Benefits.
In Love with Hua Hin since 19naughty9 and it ain't fading!!!
(My fable for All Things Japanese knows no boundaries!) Proud Student of Stamford University Hua Hin Campus from 1999 to 2004 (5th Batch of Graduates.)
“Once you survive Stamford U Hua Hin Campus only you can survive anything!!!”
(My fable for All Things Japanese knows no boundaries!) Proud Student of Stamford University Hua Hin Campus from 1999 to 2004 (5th Batch of Graduates.)
“Once you survive Stamford U Hua Hin Campus only you can survive anything!!!”
Re: Thai govt becoming discontent over foreign land ownershi
Seems like a re-run of 2011 and 2009 stories, except when it was the rice-farmers association driving it, there were very different concerns given... "Foreigners own 90% of Phuket beach land", and "Foreigners already own approximately a third of all Thai land, totalling around 100 million rai, according to Mr. Caroenpanit speaking at a recent seminar." "Failing to put an end to the issue may see Thais at competitive disadvantage, restricting their access to land and endangering the national food supplies"Some 100 million rai of Thai land is owned by foreigners, mostly through their Thai spouses or nominees, Auditor-General Sriracha told a seminar yesterday. He said if this situation was "unsolved", it could lead to later generations of Thais having no land to live on.
Some of the rice farming groups' concerns from previous times it was in the spotlight... "President of the Community Organisations Development Institute said he had information that Hmong people in the US had provided financial support for Hmong in Nan province to buy land and grow rice for shipment to the US. Wichian Phuanglamjiak, vice-president of the Thai Rice Growers' Association, said rice farmers held additional information on land grabs by foreign investors, and that farmers were pinning their hopes on the DSI to pursue the matter. DSI investigator Pakorn Sucheevakul said the agency was investigating four Thai companies in Ayutthaya which own rice farms of almost 10,000 rai.
Just four companies 'owning' 10,000 rai is a bit more like it but nothing gets done by the government, as it's the government who are inviting these companies in in the first place. I know many see Thailand as anti-foreign investment etc, but the reality is Thailand bends over backwards (relative to the region/developing nations) to attract foreign businesses and help them grab some land. They offer all sorts of financial incentives and always have, over the past 30 years Thailand has officially welcomed more FDI than any of the other Tiger-Cub nations & others, ie: Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia. It's what helped Thailand's economy flourish, and what helped those making the decisions get richer and richer. They're not going to mess around with that in a million years, imo.
Are these recent stories government leaks? ie: early warning signs from those in power that they have all the investment they want thank you, and now want to close the door? Seems not. Last year they accepted 30% more FDI than the previous year
Last year the BKK post article claimed... "New legislative measures are already being drafted in response to the issues and may reach the status of law in August."... that never occured, whereas encouraging 'land-grabbers' did... Cabinet approved proposed tax incentives for Regional Operating Headquarters (ROH) set up in Thailand, changes include; (i) A 15-year corporate income tax exemption on net profits derived from offshore income, with net profits from onshore income taxed at a rate of 10%; (ii) the criteria that minimum revenue be at least 50% of total revenue will be waived; (iii) reduced personal income tax of 15% for expatriates employed by an ROH for up to 8 years.
How bizarre can it get... 560,000 rai in Hua Hin, so it would take 168,000 owning a rai eachforeigners owned about 30 per cent of Hua Hin and Pattaya.
It's been touted that 3,000 expats live in Hua Hin, say a third rent, a third lease or condo, leaving a third through wife/Ltd company route with average 500m2 plots each, that equals 300 odd rai. Double it for good measure and you arrive at 0.12% 
SJ